Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi,

David wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > Are you recoiling in horror, or think it's a good idea?  I can't
> > tell :-)
>
> :-)  I think it's a good idea.  m_getfld() and its clients are
> difficult to maintain and expand.

It's not so much m_getfld()'s maintenance as getting it working.  :-)
I've a really pathological email here from my Aunt Dolly that makes
every version of nmh I can get to build access free(3)'d memory.  Don't
know how she does it.  There doesn't seem much point trying to patch
m_getfld() and friends yet again, especially when this particular
problem won't be hit in practice.

Meanwhile, I kind of agree with kre's, was it, comment about flex being
overkill.  I've been wondering if a next small step would be keeping
m_getfld()'s weird interface for all the many callers, but have a new
implementation that never un-gets more than one byte.  I think it's
possible, and with just stdio.h tracking buffering.  It should make the
internal logic much simpler, so it ideally can be "seen" to be correct.

-- 
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy